John McCain and the Dirty Dozen

Today John McCain was trying to woo the conservative base of his party, which is a good idea since in today's North Carolina primary 27% of Republicans voted against the guy, even though he has a lock on the nomination.

McCain promised to appoint "conservatives" to the Supreme Court, saying that his
“ nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power."

Cool—but I wonder if he will appoint a justice inclined to overrule McConnell v. FCC, where the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which was the single greatest abridgment of free speech since the Civil War—giving political speech less protection than burning the flag.

I don't think that Honest John is much of a reader, but it would be a good idea if he took a look at The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom .

In the book, Robert Levy and William Mellor explain why Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he opined that the Judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of the federal government.

The book is about twelve Supreme Court cases that changed the course of American history by expanding the power of the federal government far beyond that enjoyed by King George , and gutting the civil rights and liberties which were the reason we fought a revolution.

One of the profiled cases is McConnell v. FCC.

I wonder if a President McCain would want a Justice who would overrule Wickard v. Filburn which stands for the proposition that under the interstate commerce clause the federal government can regulate virtually anything, which now includes making a terminally ill patient a criminal for using medical marijuana, grown and distributed in a single state, taken under a doctor's prescription, in accordance with state law.

Or does McCain favor federalists of convenience, like Antonin Scalia—who are always able to find the inherent drug or national security exception to the Constitution?

How about Bemmis v. Michigan? The Supreme Court allowed a wife to lose her half interest in the family car in a civil forfeiture proceeding because her husband had used the vehicle as a convenient place to get a blowjob from a hooker.

While McCain is, at best, a johnny come lately to the view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not at all clear that he understands that the reason is because the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about abortion—not because he might be personally against abortion, or many of the voters he is wooing are.

I rather doubt that a President McCain will appoint a justice willing to take on Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell where the Supreme Court decided that when the drafters of the Constitution wrote "No State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts" they meant essentially the opposite.

Or how about the Japanese internment cases, which stand for the “national security exception” which was the rationale for holding Jose Padilla, an American citizen, in a military brig for years without bringing criminal charges.

Would he have the courage to appoint a justice who was at least willing to chip away at Helvering v. Davis , and the rest of the New Deal decisions, which through the “general welfare” clause, gave the federal government unlimited power to tax, spend and control every crook and cranny of an individual's life.

Honest John ticked off liberals because they don't care what the Constitution says when it comes to their pet projects. He pleased the type of people who nowadays consider themselves “conservatives” because he was implicitly endorsing their two primary pet projects—no abortions and plenty of capital punishment.

I'd like to know John McCain's thoughts on The Dirty Dozen.